If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Anyways, to my mind, the big problem we've got is foreign wars and our willingness to participate in them. Thats the only real logical trigger I can think of for any of this shit. Cultural differences are a factor, but no-one gets convinced they should blow up a bunch of kids solely because they don't like bikinis, it's not how humans work. We need tighter control on our bombing habit more than we need it on our borders or our internet.

but no-one gets convinced they should blow up a bunch of kids solely because they don't like bikinis, it's not how humans work.

These guys aren't attacking your people because they don't like bikinis. They are fighting a war against you. This is how Islam has behaved for over a thousand years. They want everything you have - the land, gold, women, the whole enchilada.

If you're willing to peacefully surrender and give it all to them, then fine (and your leaders are willing). If not, they will be happy to slaughter every last one of you.

You have three choices:
1) Convert to Islam
2) Expel all muslims from your land
3) Choose not to fight and be slaughtered until the last few remnants are made into slaves.

Make the choice soon. Although even converting to Islam will not stop the bombing and fighting, because factions within Islam still attack each other.

That's ridiculous. You can't confuse the actions of a group of terrorists with the mindset of an entire religion, the vast majority of which live peacefully all over the planet, unless you're actively looking for reasons to be racist and/or a bigot.

If you ban people based on religion alone, you are violating human rights.

What a strange argument. This is simply not true. Also as I said, sticking to your principles may seem fine to you now, but the Brits who have had to wash little girls' shredded flesh out of their hair might not see it so clearly.

Right now the frequency of muslim attacks seems to be about one a week. You seem comfortable with that for now. But will you still be comfortable it it rises to twice or three times a week? What about daily?

If you're referring to WWII, Europeans fought and defeated the enemy. They should do the same today. Where would England or France be today if they decided not to fight Hitler because #notallGermans were Nazis?

If you're referring to WWII, Europeans fought and defeated the enemy. They should do the same today. Where would England or France be today if they decided not to fight Hitler because #notallGermans were Nazis?

Shitty analogy.

A. We're fighting the enemy now. The enemy isn't Islam. It's ISIS.

B. What you're advocating would be more like the government rounding up and deporting all Germans, because some of them could be secret Nazis.

These guys aren't attacking your people because they don't like bikinis. They are fighting a war against you. This is how Islam has behaved for over a thousand years. They want everything you have - the land, gold, women, the whole enchilada.

If you're willing to peacefully surrender and give it all to them, then fine (and your leaders are willing). If not, they will be happy to slaughter every last one of you.

You have three choices:
1) Convert to Islam
2) Expel all muslims from your land
3) Choose not to fight and be slaughtered until the last few remnants are made into slaves.

Make the choice soon. Although even converting to Islam will not stop the bombing and fighting, because factions within Islam still attack each other.

4) Ignore absurd false options and continue fighting terrorists.

Originally Posted by Krush

If you're referring to WWII, Europeans fought and defeated the enemy. They should do the same today. Where would England or France be today if they decided not to fight Hitler because #notallGermans were Nazis?

Originally Posted by Renzatic

Shitty analogy.

A. We're fighting the enemy now. The enemy isn't Islam. It's ISIS.

B. What you're advocating would be more like the government rounding up and deporting all Germans, because some of them could be secret Nazis.

Or rounding up and deporting all Christians because the Nazi are Christians.

Originally Posted by Krush

Don't bomb people, murder them, rape them, enslave them...

Free movement of people into any country is not a human right.

Freedom of religion is human right, it was central to the founding of the US and it's a Constitutionally protected right.

Or rounding up and deporting all Christians because the Nazi are Christians.

Well...sorta. Kinda. Not really.

If Nazism were allowed to spread and flourish, Christianity probably would've eventually been greatly reduced, if not banned outright, since it gets in the way of the fuhrer being the object of everyone's affections.

Actually, Russia is North Asia; so technically the Asians (with an assist by Great Britain, which is not European, and the United States, which is no where near European though a good chunk of its population is of European descent) defeated Germany, which is in Europe.

So how do you propose to do things like banning muslims from entering the country without giving up the idea of religious freedom?

I'd let anybody in, provided their acting upon religion and ideology does not interfere with the established baseline. Religious freedom is obviously less important than compatibility of culture and values, so someone entering the country or living in it must necessarily self-restrict. Freedom never means unlimited freedom as soon as there are two humans together in one place, so this idea of exercising moderation and acceptance should not come to anyone as a surprise. What I said is not abstruse or extraordinary; it's national law where I live and also part of the ECHR.

And painting whole groups of people as an enemy based on the actions of a few is a well-trodden path in history that we know has disastrous consequences.

Not necessarily, I think there's nothing wrong with enacting an ordinance for putting mild collective pressure on the Muslim population as a whole, recognising that the number one ideology for terror world-wide and in Europe is Islam¹ and Muslims insufficiently condemning those terrorists. I concretely have in mind:

1. You are a state recognised religion, act like it. Places of worship must be part of the public. It is not acceptable to self-segregate behind private associations when there are 400000 adherents. You have one year to become a facet of society in the open and not in the shadows.
2. The existence and sources of monetary support or missionaries/religious teachers sent from abroad must be made public.
3. Failing the following compatibility test means the loss of privileges.

I'd let anybody in, provided their acting upon religion and ideology does not interfere with the established baseline. Religious freedom is obviously less important than compatibility of culture and values, so someone entering the country or living in it must necessarily self-restrict. Freedom never means unlimited freedom as soon as there are two humans together in one place, so this idea of exercising moderation and acceptance should not come to anyone as a surprise. What I said is not abstruse or extraordinary; it's national law where I live and also part of the ECHR.

I can agree with this to a point. The thing is, the vast majority of Muslims, at least here in the US, have well adapted to our culture. We've millions of them living here natively, yet it's only been, what, 10 who have stirred up trouble?

To sum it all up nice and succulently: I have no problem with the FBI and CIA using all the (legal) tools at their disposal to look into potential terrorists, and handling them accordingly. We are trying to protect ourselves against a group of people who have declared America, Europe, and its peoples as enemies of their worldview. I only start taking issue when we start demanding the whole to bear the punishment for the actions of the few.